|
First off please try to keep this from becoming the standard alignment debate 101, what I'm after here is believeable reasons for why the monk class has to be lawful that can convince me and that I'd feel comfortable using them on a player. I ask because recently I've been watching a number of eastern movies and the martial artists in them don't seem all that lawful between . . .
1) Fighting the government.
2) Fighting amongst themselves.
3) Stealing secret techniques from each other.
4) Lying to other people and deceiving them into fighting so they don't have to.
5) Running large drug smuggling rings.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those monks could be closer to the Martial Artist type.
The normal monk gets class features like Still Mind, which require great amounts of self-discipline. Basically, the monk's abilities largely draw from an incredible degree of self-control and self-mastery, a level which is nearly impossible to achieve without being lawful.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those monks could be closer to the Martial Artist type.
The normal monk gets class features like Still Mind, which require great amounts of self-discipline. Basically, the monk's abilities largely draw from an incredible degree of self-control and self-mastery, a level which is nearly impossible to achieve without being lawful.
Oh yeah that's a perfectly logical-Ohai Drunken Master how are you?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that most of the listed situations stem more from the good-evil axis of the alignement system rather than from the lawful-chaotic one.
I can easily see LE monks (or even LN) fighting other schools or rivals, stealing techniques, manipulating others, and even exploiting people for nefarious purposes - and not caring a bit about "the law", or purposefully abusing unjust rules.
Moreover, LG monks (or any other class) fighting against tyrannical governments are pretty much a clichè.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful organizations are often in conflict with not just chaotic ones, but other lawful ones as well (because OUR ways are the correct ones).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The basic idea is that Monks are self-disciplined, and require that self-discipline to progress in their calling and powers. They're not precisely the heroes of martial arts movies (many of whom would be more Brawler than Monk), being more like idealized Shaolin Monks.
As Rynjin notes, however, some archetypes and concepts really don't quite work with that and sorta break up the in-game logic quite a bit. Personally, I'd be cool with a non-Lawful Monk, but them's the rules.
Also, for the record, none of the things you list are inherently non-Lawful, with the exception of lying, and even there it's sort of a hallmark of Lawful Evil. Lawful behavior isn't necessarily adherence to the actual law of land, merely a consistent code of behavior. Organized crime is a typical example of Lawful Evil in many ways, and is inclined to many of the behaviors you list...
Oh yeah that's a perfectly logical-Ohai Drunken Master how are you?Those monks could be closer to the Martial Artist type.
The normal monk gets class features like Still Mind, which require great amounts of self-discipline. Basically, the monk's abilities largely draw from an incredible degree of self-control and self-mastery, a level which is nearly impossible to achieve without being lawful.
Yeah, there are admittedly some curveballs. Wildcat Monk, specialist in crotch kicks, eye pokes, theft, and pantsing - must be lawful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin alignment restriction gets all the attention, but to me the restrictions on Druid and Monk are way more nonsensical that the paladin. I disagree, but can understand, a "non chaotic" restriction on monk, but the impossibility of a True Neutral monk is beyond my comprehension; there can't be monks whose theme is balance, it seems.
Oh yeah that's a perfectly logical-Ohai Drunken Master how are you?
I do have to say that Drunken Master always struck me as a conceptually weird archetype of a Monk. Wonder if it came from somebody who loved WarCraft III/World of WarCraft and the Pandaren Brewmaster? (Those don't seem particularly Lawful either.)
Going back in time, in D&D 1st Edition the Githzerai (human-derived people dwelling in Limbo, and mortal enemies of the Astral-dwelling Githyanki with which they shared common ancestry) were Chaotic Neutral, yet were described as being very monastic and even had their own orders of Monks. Go figure . . . .
According to me, the discipline needed to be a monk should translate in the class being restricted to non-chaotic instead of Lawful only.
Being impulsive and lacking self control are Chaotic traits, but you can be very dedicated and focused without being strictly Lawful. Monk are not clerics, they don't have any rules or deity principles to follow. They just need discipline...and discipline isn't absolutely related to any belief in the supremacy of order, law or hierarchy. It is just a question of willpower.
I think the lawful alignment fits well with the idea of the self-disciplined monk. I do wish that there was more flexibility with the archetypes though. The entire write up for the Hungry Ghost Monk describes it as one of temptation with high opportunity for corruption. The idea of a Hungry Ghost that can rise above this temptation and remain lawful is great but I rather hate the idea that if you opt to roleplay giving in to temptation and become chaotic your character is going to frequently be paying for atonements to keep levelling as a monk.
Lawful can also mean a code of ethics, not just follow laws.
For instance Boshido is
I. Rectitude or Justice
II. Courage
III. Benevolence or Mercy
IV. Politeness
V. Honesty and Sincerity
VI. Honor
VII. Loyalty
VIII. Character and Self-Control
Nothing in it says follow rules others have made, just follow my rules.
YMMV
You can do all the actions you listed, and still be lawful. Allow me to demonstrate.
1). Galt. Just Galt. Stabilizing that hot mess will require fighting against the government.
2). Disagreements will happen, period. Hell, I can tell you with certainty that clerics of Asmodeous will fight amongst each other, and I don't think many would quibble about them being lawful.
3). It's not stealing if you see it and practice it on your own. That's just learning.
4). Borderline, but... Minions exist for a reason. Also, say a person has done nothing technically outside of the law, but still deserves what's coming. Can't very well fight him yourself, now can you?
5). Lawful people do have a tendency to have a personal moral code, or may operate off a different set of laws. This case would be like comparing the tenants of Torag and Asmodeous.
Actually my interpretation of the alignments is that Lawful characters are respectful of rule of law while Chaotic is more prone basing their conduct according to either personal codes or by undermining the rule of law. However, I do believe that any of the alignments are open to being represented in a multitude of ways.
One of these guys fails. I'll let you guess once before you click.
Monks are lawful because of the discipline needed to achieve their powers. It is the whole meditation and discipline concept taken to an extreme level.
I also recall reading that when third edition D&D was being written that the authors didn't want a multi-class monk/barbarian for some reason.
Personally I don't mind the lawful restriction. I think players get hung up on it far too much. Same with paladins.
Eryx, really my main problem with the alignment restriction is that it gets boring after a while. I suppose I have a bit of a soft spot for monks. Of the six PFS characters I've made three have either been monks or taken monk dips. Personally it's boring to have every character with the same personality and it gets a little tiresome trying to come up with multiple interpretations of the same alignment. I've already gotten to the point where I've decided on playing a monk that will struggle discipline required and as a result will frequently be taking atonements.
|
The concept of the Drunken Master well predates Warcraft.
Wikipedia entry
Jackie Chan has done a good job on representing a cinematic "drunken style" on a few occasions.
I do think the Lawful alignment component is supposed to represent the personal discipline required of dedicated martial arts masters of a certain trope, but the line has blurred to the point that it's just about useless with modern representations of martial artists, both realistic and fantastic.
If it was the ki then monks would lose their ki pool if they lose their lawful alignment. It seems like it would be better interpreted as maintaining the self-mastery to achieve that next level of skill.
These answers are all well and good, but the true, IRL reason is much simpler. It's the same reason why wall of fire does double damage against undead and a bunch of other things too.
Legacy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people come into class-based alignment restrictions from the wrong angle.
Everyone is started from the point of "here is the alignment restriction, now let's justify it". Instead, we should be coming at it from the angle of "Is there any alignment I can't justify?" If the answer to the latter question is yes, then the restriction seems valid.
For example, it's VERY hard to justify a non-good paladin. Being the paragon of good is baked in at the deepest levels. Justifying being non-lawful? A little easier.
For monks? I could maybe see an argument for non-chaotic, but why not TN/NG/NE? People who are neutral on the law-chaos axis are perfectly capable of extreme discipline of the self. Discipline hints at law, it does not require it.
Similarly, barbarians should probably be "Any" as even the most organized and law-focused individual could have a hot streak. Heck, they could be deliberately training that capability to take advantage of it elsewhere in life. After all, it's not like they lose the ability to control their actions while in Rage. They also choose exactly when to rage, no-one can force them to. Hell, both Bloodrager and Skald are "Any".
The neutrality of druids is a hold-over that, IMO, should only apply in Golarion. This extends to Hunter.
Clerics make sense. Their alignment restriction is because their god says "no" otherwise. Not much to think about there.
TL;DR - There's a reason that post-CRB alignment restrictions fall entirely into the realm of the divine/druidic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because who needs character variety when you can have pointless alignment restrictions?
It's the ki. The martial artist archetype removes alignment restrictions, but also lacks ki. Why is ki lawful? Dunno. If I were to guess, I'd say, to channel ki, one has to be in a certain state of mind. Just as paladins need to be LG to use their powers, and barbarians can't be lawful to utilize rage.
In the Pathfinder world, alignment isn't just a vague abstraction - it has literal, real-world incarnations. You could think of it this way: the essence of good is sacred bonuses; the essence of evil is profane bonuses; the essence of law if ki; the essence of chaos is rage; and neutral doesn't get anything because screw 'em for being neutral (or I guess something to do with nature).
The Ki "is lawful" because of Ki Strike. Because Ki Strike eventually gives aligned ability to overcome DR, it requires a corner alignment, and since most people associate martial arts with focused, meditating, full control of the body types, lawful worked better than chaotic. A true neutral monk would have no alignment to associate with Ki Strike.
These answers are all well and good, but the true, IRL reason is much simpler. It's the same reason why wall of fire does double damage against undead and a bunch of other things too.
Legacy.
Wait, what? Wall of Fire does double damage vs undead?
|
|
The Ki "is lawful" because of Ki Strike. Because Ki Strike eventually gives aligned ability to overcome DR, it requires a corner alignment, and since most people associate martial arts with focused, meditating, full control of the body types, lawful worked better than chaotic. A true neutral monk would have no alignment to associate with Ki Strike.
Then just do what other classes do: Either make them pick an alignment (C v L) or say "sorry, you don't get this."
Wait, what? Wall of Fire does double damage vs undead?These answers are all well and good, but the true, IRL reason is much simpler. It's the same reason why wall of fire does double damage against undead and a bunch of other things too.
Legacy.
Confirmed.
The Ki "is lawful" because of Ki Strike. Because Ki Strike eventually gives aligned ability to overcome DR, it requires a corner alignment, and since most people associate martial arts with focused, meditating, full control of the body types, lawful worked better than chaotic. A true neutral monk would have no alignment to associate with Ki Strike.It's the ki. The martial artist archetype removes alignment restrictions, but also lacks ki. Why is ki lawful? Dunno. If I were to guess, I'd say, to channel ki, one has to be in a certain state of mind. Just as paladins need to be LG to use their powers, and barbarians can't be lawful to utilize rage.
In the Pathfinder world, alignment isn't just a vague abstraction - it has literal, real-world incarnations. You could think of it this way: the essence of good is sacred bonuses; the essence of evil is profane bonuses; the essence of law if ki; the essence of chaos is rage; and neutral doesn't get anything because screw 'em for being neutral (or I guess something to do with nature).
I just realized that a monk that gets to certain level then switches to chaotic would end up taking a penalty to hit with their unarmed strikes... lol.
|
|
If it was the ki then monks would lose their ki pool if they lose their lawful alignment. It seems like it would be better interpreted as maintaining the self-mastery to achieve that next level of skill.Good point. Interestingly barbarians lose their ability to rage if lawful, but monks keep their goodies. I will echo Eryx_UK's thoughts that a monk's powers require a disciplined mind, though yes, in that case you'd think they'd lose most of their powers should they stop being lawful. At least the supernatural stuff.
Also, just remembered that ninjas get ki. So there goes that theory.
It all makes sense if you look at it like this: Legacy. Then Paizo goes "wait, that sucks" and makes all new classes follow a smaller set of alignment restriction (Druidic + Divine only).
Wait, what? Wall of Fire does double damage vs undead?These answers are all well and good, but the true, IRL reason is much simpler. It's the same reason why wall of fire does double damage against undead and a bunch of other things too.
Legacy.
Sure does! There are a lot of strange legacy interactions still in the spell system. A more commonly known one would be shield giving immunity to magic missile. There are plenty more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can be a naturally caring person who helps others out of the kindness of your heart and defends the innocent. You can also have a free spirit that puts freedom and individuality right up there with protecting nature on your priority list.
But if you put Chaotic Good on that character sheet, you're not gonna be a Druid.
That's the problem.
The Ki "is lawful" because of Ki Strike. Because Ki Strike eventually gives aligned ability to overcome DR, it requires a corner alignment, and since most people associate martial arts with focused, meditating, full control of the body types, lawful worked better than chaotic. A true neutral monk would have no alignment to associate with Ki Strike.Then just do what other classes do: Either make them pick an alignment (C v L) or say "sorry, you don't get this."
What class does that? I know cleric channels positive or negative energy based on good or evil, but neutral clerics aren't denied channel, they simply pick one.
I think one of the Inquisitor Judgements just tells you to suck it if you're TN.
EDIT: here we are
Resiliency: This judgment makes the inquisitor resistant to harm, granting DR 1/magic. This DR increases by 1 for every five levels she possesses. At 10th level, this DR changes from magic to an alignment (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) that is opposite the inquisitor’s. If she is neutral, the inquisitor does not receive this increase.
Sure does! There are a lot of strange legacy interactions still in the spell system. A more commonly known one would be shield giving immunity to magic missile. There are plenty more.Wait, what? Wall of Fire does double damage vs undead?These answers are all well and good, but the true, IRL reason is much simpler. It's the same reason why wall of fire does double damage against undead and a bunch of other things too.
Legacy.
I'm actually supportive of that interaction. It made sense that a spell as unstoppable as magic missile would encourage casters to develop a defense. I wouldn't mind more interactions like that.
I guess I must not have read the wall of Fire spell that carefully, I never noticed that one. Weird. I imagine that's a holdover from the Chainmail days, just like the Elven sleep immunity?
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
I know that the description of plain Chaotic states that the character has a tendency towards impulsive recklessness but really reading what I quoted above I don't really see anything that rules out the possibility of a self-discipline and personal code so strong that it overrides social norms and I imagine that interpretations of Chaotic Evil could be equally compatible with personal self-control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not LawfulOne of these guys fails. I'll let you guess once before you click.
Before clicking either link, I was expecting scenes from Rush Hour.
Use background traits. If they're available, then I think the usual rule is two. There's one that lets you treat your character as a member of another race for the purpose of qualifying for racial background traits, entirely regardless of what race your character actually is.
Then for your second trait, there's one for the Idyllkin Aasimar in the Blood of Angels book that lets you continue to take levels in Monk even if you're NG or TN.
Then just play neutral and ignore all the alignment garbage.
But to answer your question, it's because previous editions took a look at the disciplined nature of the Monk, mistakenly conflated that with the entirety of the Lawful alignment, and said "Monks = Lawful only". Paizo saw this, said "backwards compatibility" and kept the Monks as Lawful (Shush you! No one wants to hear about the Bard. ...Or the Samurai.)
God willing, Pathfinder Unchained will finally unchain us from this travesty by taking the Monk's alignment restriction, hauling it out behind the woodshed, taking a shotgun to it and then purging it with fire and brimstone.
|
|
Druidic + Divine only? Come again?
It all makes sense if you look at it like this: Legacy. Then Paizo goes "wait, that sucks" and makes all new classes follow a smaller set of alignment restriction (Druidic + Divine only).
As in, they only added alignment restrictions to new classes if those classes had a close divine connection or a close druidic connection. In other words, Inquisitor, Warpriest, and Hunter.
Even new classes with similar features to core classes that have restrictions did not gain those restrictions. Examples include Ninja, which has a ki pool but no restrictions; and (in the more extreme case) Bloodrager, which is explicitly based on Barbarian but has no alignment restriction.
It's the ki. The martial artist archetype removes alignment restrictions, but also lacks ki. Why is ki lawful? Dunno. If I were to guess, I'd say, to channel ki, one has to be in a certain state of mind. Just as paladins need to be LG to use their powers, and barbarians can't be lawful to utilize rage.
In the Pathfinder world, alignment isn't just a vague abstraction - it has literal, real-world incarnations. You could think of it this way: the essence of good is sacred bonuses; the essence of evil is profane bonuses; the essence of law if ki; the essence of chaos is rage; and neutral doesn't get anything because screw 'em for being neutral (or I guess something to do with nature).
Man I must have missed that Lawful only restriction on the Ninja class then.
what I'm after here is believeable reasons for why the monk class has to be lawful
There aren't any. Class is not concept, concept is not class ... if you are a Monk-The-Concept, then yeah, self-discipline and stuff (though it still makes me laugh that lying too much means you can't get better at hitting things harder). Monk-The-Class could be used as the foundation for a number of not-monk-the-concepts which would have zero reason to be stuck lawful.
It's just one of those pieces of junk that's been dredged up through the editions that deserves to go in the dungheap.
Man I must have missed that Lawful only restriction on the Ninja class then.It's the ki. The martial artist archetype removes alignment restrictions, but also lacks ki. Why is ki lawful? Dunno. If I were to guess, I'd say, to channel ki, one has to be in a certain state of mind. Just as paladins need to be LG to use their powers, and barbarians can't be lawful to utilize rage.
In the Pathfinder world, alignment isn't just a vague abstraction - it has literal, real-world incarnations. You could think of it this way: the essence of good is sacred bonuses; the essence of evil is profane bonuses; the essence of law if ki; the essence of chaos is rage; and neutral doesn't get anything because screw 'em for being neutral (or I guess something to do with nature).
Oh yeah, it's right there next to how Monks lose their ki pool if they stop being Lawful.
And where they're expressly forbidden from gaining an increase to their ki pool by increasing their Wisdom modifier.
And how neither they nor anyone else who's neither a Monk nor Lawful can take the Style feats or things like Elemental Fist that are ki in everything but name.
...
Oh right. Not a one of those things is actually the case.
Man I must have missed that Lawful only restriction on the Ninja class then.
And the Ki Pool rogue talent.
Discipline.
Law alignment encompasses more than merely government and laws. A lawful person favors structure, order, discipline, tradition, or some kind of code. The monk has a lawful restriction because the entire class centers around following a set of philosophical beliefs to reach enlightenment/perfection with Buddhist overtones. Being a monk is all about becoming stronger through self-mastery. You can see this with many of their later level abilities and the capstone where the monk ascends into their perfect self as a lawful-aligned outsider. It's also worth noting that a non-lawful monk does not lose their class abilities, but merely cannot gain more monk levels, reinforcing the class's flavor as an individual that grows stronger with discipline.
To me, as a home ruling, I don't enforce alignment restrictions on monks, because I always feel that story trumps rules. This doesn't work for PFS crowd I know, but it does for my group. Paladin alignment makes sense (though I do wish for alternate classes other than anti-paladin, like 3.5's paladins of tyranny and freedom), as do restrictions for divine casters. But chaotic characters can have plenty of self discipline, though it might not always show. Korra or Aang from the Avatar series are good examples of 'mystical unarmed fighters' who are not lawful but plenty disciplined and able to meditate if need be. If people take umbridge with a non-lawful character with still mind, fine. Almost every monk archetype gives that up.